Why does low intensity, long-day lighting promote growth in<i>Petunia</i>,<i>Impatiens</i>, and tomato?

Adams, Sally; Valdés, V. M.; Langton, F. A.

doi:10.1080/14620316.2008.11512431

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead they suggested that growth was enhanced because of the non-linear relationship between photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) and net photosynthesis at low light levels; low intensity LD lighting can be used efficiently for photosynthesis. Furthermore, a small increase in photosynthesis would have a greater impact (in percentage terms) when ambient light levels were low (Adams et al, 2008). However, there have been no reports on the effect of low intensity LD lighting on a long-season tomato crop.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Hurd (1973) Gabrielsen (1948), Hurd (1973) estimated that the observed increase in chlorophyll content could account for a 6% increase in photosynthesis under the conditions used in his experiment. However, Adams et al (2008), who measured photosynthesis, did not find an effect of LD on photosynthetic efficiency. Instead they suggested that growth was enhanced because of the non-linear relationship between photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) and net photosynthesis at low light levels; low intensity LD lighting can be used efficiently for photosynthesis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of long-day lighting and removal of young leaves on tomato yield

Valdés

Woodward²,

Adams³

2010

The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running head: Effects of daylength and leaf removal on tomato * Author for correspondence. SUMMARYWhile low intensity long-day (LD) lighting has been shown to enhance the growth of young plants under low light levels, the effect on the yield of a long-season glasshouse tomato crop has not been previously examined. LD were provided by the use of tungsten lamps (2.8 µmol m -2 s -1 at approx. 0.5 m from the ground) between 04.00 h to sunrise and from sunset until 20.00 h (GMT). LD lighting increased the leaf chlorophyll contents, and the numbers of flowers and fruits set per truss when the plants were young. However, this treatment did not affect the total yield of tomatoes.Different leaf removal treatments were applied within each glasshouse compartment.A previous experiment had shown that reducing the leaf area index (LAI) from 5.2 to 2.6, by removing old leaves, did not affect yields. It is also thought that the removal of young leaves reduces the total vegetative sink-strength and favours assimilate partitioning into fruit. Therefore, removal of young leaves could benefit yield. In the present experiment a third of the leaves were removed in March (those immediately below each truss) and subsequently every third leaf was removed at an early stage.This reduced the LAI from 4.1 to 2.9 and resulted in a loss of yield from 3 to 4 weeks after leaf removal until the end of the experiment, at which point there was an 8% loss of cumulative yield, due to a reduction in the average number of fruits set per truss and mean fruit weight. We postulate that light which would have been intercepted by young photosynthetically efficient leaves at the top of the canopy was intercepted instead by older leaves which were less efficient, reducing the net canopy In both studies increased chlorophyll contents were observed when growth was enhanced as a result of LD. Based on the response presented by Gabrielsen (1948), Hurd (1973 estimated that the observed increase in chlorophyll content could account for a 6% increase in photosynthesis under the conditions used

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of long-day lighting and removal of young leaves on tomato yield

Valdés

Woodward²,

Adams³

2010

The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Petunia and Impatiens, for example, plants grown under daylight for 8 h with supplemental lighting at 4 mol m −2 s −1 PPF for 8 h significantly promoted their growth through increased A n (Adams et al, 2008). However, a small increase in daily light integral by NI at low light intensity such as 3-5 mol m −2 s −1 PPF has often been ignored with respect to A n due to negligible effect on subsequent growth promotion (Adams et al, 2008;Markvart et al, 2009;Park et al, 2013). In the cases of Pelargonium, Zinnia and Dianthus, artificial lighting at 3-5 mol m −2 s −1 PPF did not induce A n during NI (Park et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Park et al (2013) PPF had no direct effect on photosynthesis and carbon accumulation in Pelargonium, Zinnia and Dianthus. In Petunia and Tecoma, however, SD with supplemental lighting at 2-4 mol m −2 s −1 PPF for 8 h increased dry weight, plant height or number of nodes (Adams et al, 2008;Torres and Lopez, 2011), indicating that artificial lighting at a low light intensity can promote growth through increased photosynthesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…For producing commercial flowers in a shortened growing period, sufficient growth is an essential prerequisite. A minor increase in the photosynthetic daily light integral from lowintensity DE or NI lighting is often assumed to have a negligible impact on net photosynthesis and subsequent plant growth (Adams et al, 2008). Park et al (2013) PPF had no direct effect on photosynthesis and carbon accumulation in Pelargonium, Zinnia and Dianthus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Photosynthetic changes in Cymbidium orchids grown under different intensities of night interruption lighting

Kim

Rho

et al. 2015

Scientia Horticulturae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vineyard soil texture and pH effects on Meloidogyne hapla and Mesocriconema xenoplax

East,

Zasada,

Lee

et al. 2023

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Northern root‐knot nematode (Meloidogyne hapla) and ring nematode (Mesocriconema xenoplax) are the most prevalent plant‐parasitic nematodes of wine grapes in the Pacific Northwest, but M. hapla is most important in eastern Washington and M. xenoplax in western Oregon. These regions differ edaphically where Washington soils are minimally weathered and alkaline while Oregon soils are highly weathered and acidic. To examine the effect of soil texture and pH on nematode reproduction, an alkaline, sandy loam soil (pH 7.9) from Washington and an acidic loam soil from Oregon (pH 5.4) were modified to the other pH extreme, and to a middle pH of 6.9. Tomatoes were planted into each soil/pH combination, and either 500 M. hapla second‐stage juveniles or M. xenoplax individuals were added to each pot. After 7 weeks, plants were harvested, three roots collected for analysis, remaining roots and leaves dried and weighed, and nematode population densities determined as eggs on roots (M. hapla) and nematodes in soil (M. xenoplax). Soil texture (sandy loam or loam) had no effect on either nematode, but M. hapla reproduction was greater in the lowest pH soil while M. xenoplax was unaffected by soil pH. Mesocriconema xenoplax parasitism reduced root length and root tip number, whereas M. hapla increased root mass in the highest pH Washington soil. Under these experimental conditions, it appears vineyard soil texture in the Pacific Northwest is not a determining factor in population growth of these nematodes, but M. hapla performed better at low pH.

show abstract

Why does low intensity, long-day lighting promote growth inPetunia,Impatiens, and tomato?

Cited by 17 publications

References 7 publications

The effects of long-day lighting and removal of young leaves on tomato yield

The effects of long-day lighting and removal of young leaves on tomato yield

Photosynthetic changes in Cymbidium orchids grown under different intensities of night interruption lighting

Vineyard soil texture and pH effects on Meloidogyne hapla and Mesocriconema xenoplax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About